Re: German Translation WCAG 2.1 - Disapproval

Hello Eric,

Am 24.03.22 um 08:07 schrieb Eric Eggert:
> You can find the current translation guidelines for W3C Standards 
> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/Overview.html 

I found the wrong link, because my search was too quick, and I didn't 
look at the documents for a long time. Thanks for correcting me.


> Among these guidelines, it states:
> 
>     **Do not change or adapt or add to the meaning of the English
>     version in your translation.** If you have suggestions for changes
>     to the English version, provide them to the technical report editors
>     as indicated in *Status of this Document section** of the technical
>     report.

Indeed you have to translate even errors that have an errata, so that 
the translation shows the error.

That does not mean that you cannot add an annotation, that points the 
reader to the errata and explains the errata.


> I do not find any information on how to add translation notes inside the 
> normative text. (But this might be under-documented.)


If you follow this link
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#translate
you will find the section:
May I annotate one of your specifications?

Here it says that you can annotate specifications if you follow the 
described procedure. Indeed the documents are old, but still valid as 
far as I can see.

As an example for annotated translations you can refer to the German 
translations of various documents, e.g. HTML 4.01.
A short example can be found here:
http://www.schumacher-netz.de/TR/2013/REC-html-rdfa-20130822.de.html

In the header it is stated that the document contains annotations. 
Within the document there is a clearly marked section "Kommentar des 
Übersetzer" with a different background color, the same color that is 
used for the translation header.


> That said, the WCAG 2.0 translation has an “Anmerkungen” section in the 
> top disclaimer area, and links to a separate “Anmerkungen zur deutschen 
> Übersetzung der WCAG 2.0” page. 
> (https://www.w3.org/Translations/WCAG20-de/anmerkungen.html 
> <https://www.w3.org/Translations/WCAG20-de/anmerkungen.html>)

I have seen that approach, imho, a good way to list the comments in the 
document. But keeping the comments in place were misunderstandings could 
occur is more helpful than only showing these "Anmerkungen" at the 
bottom. Readers search for specific sections, read them and leave. So 
the "Anmerkungen" will not be read in most cases.

Just my two cent
STS




> 
> I think adding a note about the wording in a similar place/document for 
> WCAG 2.1 might help to clarify the issue. I wonder if that could ease 
> the concerns raised by Gottfried Zimmermann.
> 
> 👋 Eric
> 
> On 23 Mar 2022, at 22:22, Stefan Schumacher wrote:
> 
>     Hello editors and translators,
> 
>     Am 23.03.22 um 09:48 schrieb Eric Eggert:
> 
>         The translation of assistive technology as “assistierende
>         Techniken” was a WCAG 2.0 translation consensus reached as
>         German speaking countries have different names. The discussion
>         only refers to sources in Germany for the impetus of the change
>         request where “assistive Technologien” is prevalent.
> 
>     in the past we used to add a "comment of the translator(s)" in a box
>     that was clearly marked as a comment of the translator(s).
> 
>     Adding these comments helps readers to understand why translators
>     used terms that, e.g., might be not up to date anymore.
> 
>     A comment why the term "assistierende Techniken" is used and that it
>     might be referred to as "Assistive Techniken" or "Assistive
>     Technologien" in other sources and why this decision was made, would
>     help in this case.
> 
>     Adding these comments is fine with W3C as you can see in
>     https://www.w3.org/International/2004/06/translation-process
>     <https://www.w3.org/International/2004/06/translation-process>.
>     See "Changes to the text".
>     Please correct me if that is not true for authorized translations.
> 
>     I would say a good translation should have these comments in place
>     where a precise translation is not possible, where multiple terms
>     might be right, and in case there are already Errata that correct
>     the original version.
> 
>     Regards
>     Stefan Schumacher
> 
>     PS. When I translated WCAG 2.1 end of 2018 up to chapter 1.4 without
>     looking at WCAG 2.0 I used "assistierende Technologie". Even though
>     I prefer "Technologie" over "Technik" myself, I would not deem it a
>     reason for a general disapproval.
> 
> 
> --
> 
> outline Consulting
> 
> Sandra Kallmeyer und Eric Eggert GbR
> Gutenbergstr. 12
> 57537 Wissen
> GERMANY
> 
> USt-IdNr.: DE275406670
> 
> info@outline.rocks
> www.outline.rocks
> 
> Spielregeln
> http://outline.rocks/spielregeln.php <http://outline.rocks/spielregeln.php>
>

Received on Thursday, 24 March 2022 08:58:55 UTC